This kind of philosophy makes me sick. Who do they not trust the women or themselves?

What do yo think?

My doctor has the same rule.

waterfall, even if your doctor is talking and not examining?

What a waste of taxpayers money if a doctor won't be in the same room as a patient without someone else present.

No, but I was just wondering if Billy was protecting himself, his wife and maybe the woman herself, by not setting up a scenario that could be misconstrued by gossip or a false allegation. I think sometimes those in higher positions can be more vulnerable.

Would this also be against patients rights?  If, as a patient I don't want someone observing, I should have that right I thought.

Interesting.  I am thinking of the fear that Billy Graham must have that he would never be alone with a female.

Does he have the same constraints re being alone with a male?

Interesting comment, Pinga.

I think,other than his wife, Billy thought all women were Jezebels. Women would lead him into temptation.

as a matter of fact i do the same here, I won'nt go on a thread alone if a woman is here, so i keep roxy with me , just incase 

I once went to a doctor who had another person in the room reading a book the whole time.  It was weird. It was never really explained what the woman was doing.  I was just there for a sore throat or something.  I felt it was court appointed or something which made me feel uneasy.

Rick Warren and Billy Graham have different ideas indeed.

As the man in the room feels he is the authority does he need someone else to protect himself from the corruption of authority presented in the form of a weaker and more humble entity? Ah,  the lesser details that can corrupt a man of great power ... like ink can blacken a mind ... and thus the Shadow creeps us out with what is known and writ there ... but few are really literate enough to know!

This is the natural urge for an authority to put down ... they too cannot view the situation from the other's IDe ... chaos rules ... and thus huge mental stirs by outside stresses about intelligence ... and things we'd rather not know!

The lesson ... never be an authority and you won't have to watch ... why intercourse with the psyche is so under ground ... and public printing of lesser thoughts were outlawed under the Rule of AEropagitica ... but who in their present state of mind would understand such old material about the House of Lords interference with Pam phalatering? Sometimes refered to as distribution of flyers ... and realists don't believe in flighty thoughts ... they haven't got that far in the mental pathe yetii ...

Th double "i" is silent in some liguistic traditions ... but this too is generally not known and thus out of here in a more intelligent dimension ... or why the pathe to mental state is out of 'Eire ... this state we're in being obviously crazy ... and simply isn't cognizant of the fact ... dyslexia (seeing things from the opposing side) has its advantages ... not always  a difficulty ... something to be resolved as dilemma ...

Sometimes takes the faroute sort to untangle it ... thus hope for the return of the Shadow ... hoo knows all ...!

The ecliptic nature of those first verses of Genesis ... sometime an eclipse of what was really a'phore-ism ...

Do you know what phore is?

Hi crazyheart,

I suspect it has something to do with the general reality that all people are not trustworthy.

It may not be the woman in the room who can't be trusted.

It may not even be the man in the room who can't be trusted.

It may be the one who was not in the room with either the man or the woman who cannot be trusted.  Rumours start and rumours grow.

Today maybe the talk is how I met with so and so in the parlour, by ourselve for an hour.  Tomorrow in the telling we may be sitting closer and the consoling hand on the shoulder might be construed as something more sinister.  The day after tomorrow somebody remembers the late night visit I made to her home and doesn't that sound suspicious?  

The truth doesn't matter, nor is it likely as interesting or entertaining as the thought that something scandalous could be happening.

The rumour could destroy her marriage.

The rumour could destroy my career.

I don't think the potential harm to either of us is outweighed by your outrage or nausea.

I think that there are times when counselling must be intimate (not sexually but personally).  Individuals who have been deprived of intimacy (again not necessarily sexual) will gravitate towards individuals who can and are willing to offer intimacy. 

It can start quite innocently and if both were in healthy relationships where intimacy was not a problem the innocent start would never be in danger of going off the rails.  Can you not even imagine how powerful my willingness to listen would be to a woman, or a man for that matter, who had no one willing to sit with them and listen to them?

And if the person who is willing to sit and listen to them is not getting enough affirmation of their own at home any gratitude expressed would feel great.

Hopefully marriage vows and professional ethics are stronger than that.

Sometimes they haven't been.

And I suspect that there are none who, depending upon the circumstance, might not stumble.  Not every clergy person who ran off with the music director is a predator looking to take advantage of someone else's weakness.  Sometimes they were two lonely people who found comfort and joy in each other's company and they were willing to sacrifice the unhappy families they had for hope at a new happy one.

And when that happens I suspect that would make you sicker still. 

The decisions made by Billy and Rick point to a very real human frailty.  I really don't think that they should be deningrated because of the boundaries they have chosen to set for themselves.  Whether we agree with them or not.

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn, i understand that, but surely there are other ways to protect than never meeting alone with someone.  Dang, I meet alone with people all the time at work, but, there is glass in the door, people walking by, etc.

Hi Pinga,

How many people on average would you say walk by those windows in an hour?  How far away would any one of those people be, in a pinch, 5m, 10m 50m or 100m?

In more than half of my work places I'd be lucky if I had one person wander by in the space of an hour and even then they were likely doing anywhere between 60 and 80kph and would make extremely unreliable witnesses.  And when those people aren't zipping by my nearest neighbour might be 500m away and in an entirely separate building.

Any idea how many people with pressing issues that they feel I am best suited to respond to want to meet in a public place like Tim Horton's or the park?  They are as rare as the speeding passerby.

I do meet with people one on one because I don't have a full-time office administrator or custodian around.

Am I putting myself at risk every time I do so?

Of course I am.

Unfortunately, I probably won't be made aware of the risk until after I have been exposed to it and then guess what?  This thread, where I reveal that I knowingly put myself into situations of risk becomes ammunition against me.

Billy and Rick move in the rarified air travelled by Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts and others.  Some handle themselves admirably while others haven't.  I expect that the dividing line probably has something to do with the boundaries Billy has willingly set over and against the boundaries the others failed to respect.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Fair, but, Billy  or orther high profile ministers of large faith groups are going to be surrounded by many folks and could clearly make accomodations.

I get that your situation puts you at risk.  I've had to deal with a male predator in a workplace (many many years ago).  I get the scenario that can put people at risk from predators of either gender and claims of abuse from either gender.

These guys though are part of bustling faith groups or communities.  It would be relatively simple to say "i only meet in a room with a glass door, or always ensure that ___________ is done.  ie door is open unless talking about confidential matters.  

Doctors are in an office, with medical rooms.  I can't imagine a doctor deciding that they would never meet with a woman alone.  

Its unfortunate, but the reality is that even a teacher has to second guess a comforting hug to a student, nurses also have to be careful as to how their actions will be interpreted by staff and the patient themselves and I would think there are many professions that have been orientated to guard against such things.

Pinga my doctor has the nures come in with us during examinations. I actually understand why and am okay with it. I also understand that not all doctors do this.

The doctors at a medical clinic I use to go to had a sign up that said if I wanted, I was allowed to have the person of my choose with me when being seen by an MD.

So I would asked for the Prime Minister or the ministyer of health. And instead of getting these people for me, the staff would just laugh. 

I guess that I get why they do it, Lastpointe. 

I just find that it is a heavy burden on our health care system when only one person is required. 

I know that I met with a nurse recently without a doctor present.

I am fairly sure that I met with my doctor without a nurse present.

I hear the reasons why the problem can manifest, and revjohn, i really appreciate the language around someone listening to them, that makes sense, and i hadn't thought of it that way, and of couse, two lonely people are going to be probable to find each other.  I appreciate you giving the scenarios of how it happens.

I get that not every one agrees with Billy Graham, and that his theology isn't an easy fit with most folk on WC. Not with mine, either. But why the barely disguised hostility toward him? So that's his practice. Why is it any of our business what Billy Graham's practice is? Maybe he understands the dangers of temptation and has just decided he'll nip it in the bud. Maybe he's concerned about simple appearances. Maybe he's concerned about the possibility of false accusations. So what? It's his practice. Methinks that there's a lot of hostility toward Franklin Graham being transferred onto Billy Graham. Whatever you think about the "Billy Graham rule," he's one high profile evangelist who has never been tainted with sexual scandal or with accusations of sexual wrongdoing. If people here on WC don't like the Billy Graham rule, I suspect his response would be - as it should be - "tough."

Hi Pinga,

True.

How many people are close to a President?

How does an intern (for example) come to find herself alone and in a compromising situation with one who is regularly described as the leader of the free world.

Does power not corrupt?

Why was there nobody around to clear their throat and say, respectfully, "Mr. President you ought not to do that?"

And lets be clear, this is just one example that we know about.  I'm sure that there are many more, involving more than this particular president I refer to, that we do not know about and may never come to know about.

We hear all the time about Doctors meeting with men and women alone all the time and I expect that most of the time there is no real issue.  Mind you my doctors tend to be rather clinical.  When things get most, um intimate, I can assure you I want nothing more than to get out of that room and there is no indication that I find that particularly intimate examination a longed for experience.

Frankly, I'd deal with a ton of grief at home for months on end rather than the few seconds that follow when the doctor says, "you might find this a bit uncomfortable."  And God forbid it takes a little longer and they say, "I don't like the feel of  that."

And yet, I can recall at least two or three stories in the local paper from the last year that indicate a couple of doctors who were once trusted in a closed room alone with a patient abused and violated that trust not once or twice but many, many, many times.

Everyone does risk assessment.

What is different between say Rick Warren and myself?  Well for starters I think it might be revenue from book sales.  Finances are never an aphrodisiac right?  There is the power that comes from being the lead pastor at a mega church.  Power is never an aphrodisiac right?

Rick and Billy take a look at what they have and how easy it would be for them to have it all taken away and decide, this is my boundary line.  I won't cross it.

Is that not their right?

Grace and peace to you.

John

When meeting with a minister who needed support in a really "unbalanced" situation as Chair of Trustees ... we were accused of an affair by one of the oldest and stogeist people in the congregation ..

This is why I cannot take many church people seriously ... the game of life in the competitive mode is absolutely crazy ... and get those that don't know this get sucked up in the strom of non-sense.

I have walked from apartment buildings with widows who noted that we were being watched by neighbours ... I encouraged her to take my arm firmly ... just for the humour ... and in case the poor thing might 've fallen for some other nonsense ... Cos that's all it is ... not much intellect involved by emotional peoples ...

It probably was court appointed. A doctor accused of an indiscretion. The woman was likely a retired nurse being paid to be present until the issue was settled. A cousin of mine was a nurse in that position for a period of several months.

Hi Pinga,

Relationships happen.

Relationships deepen through mutuality and intimacy (not necessarily sexual).  I have colleagues in ministry whom I wouldn't hesitate to say that I love and respect.  They are male and they are female.  There have been times in my life, difficult times when those colleagues have been very present, have literally offered a shoulder and held me because that is what I had the greatest need of at that moment.

It has been decidedly unsexual.

At the same time it has been incredibly and intensely intimate.

If I had no boundaries.

If the other had no boundaries.

That would be a recipe for disaster.

I have been very deliberate in finding friends I know have boundaries and the ability to keep them simply because in moments of weakness I could stumble as easily as anyone else.

On days when my friends could stumble I trust the grace of God to keep me on my feet and mindful of my own boundaries.

Thats the company I keep through choice.

The folk who come to my door in crisis may not be as diligent or watchful regarding their own boundaries.

Sometimes the problem starts not because a person failed to keep their boundaries but rather because they refused to fail to keep them.  A parishoner lured by the promises of intimacy suddenly runs into a wall and experiences rejection.

Hell hath no fury.

Pastoral ministry is a bizarre labyrinth that is also minefield and those who stumble into it heedlessly leave a bloody trail of lives and limbs in their wake.

If it were only about predators looking for prey we'd be able to clean it up without a problem.  Because it is far more complex than that we all put ourselves at risk and often without being aware of just where the danger actually lurks.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

Amen.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Wait? I only saw one comment that seemed to be in reference to Billy Graham.

Most of the dialogue has been around being alone with folks whether it be ministers in rural or large areas, or doctors.

Am I missing something that people are bashing Billy Graham specifically?

I think people think that, because his name is in the rule, Pinga. If it was the Pinga-Pinga Rule, you would be getting the flack, I think.

It's not just this thread, and it's not just WC. Ever since Franklin made his comments about pastors being willing to get their heads chopped off for opposing gay rights I've seen in a variety of places what seems to be an inability of people to differentiate between the two and to project (for no good reason that I can see) their hostility toward Franklin on to Billy.

I am rather in favour of the Graham Rule in that I would likely follow it myself if I was in his position. The problem is that we live in a cynical age and some will take any opportunity to importune the reputation of those cast into "high places" whether they are actors, politicians, or preachers. The media, and the Internet mobs in particular, love to see someone come crashing down in flames whether said crash is merited or not. That, as I think John already suggested, is the greater risk than that of someone actually doing something unfortunate in a private situation (though that does happen, too). Evangelical preachers in particular are at risk ever since the fall of the Jim Bakker and other in the eighties and nineties. The Graham Rule should not be necessary, but society makes it necessary, at least for some people in some situations.

Mendalla

I think Rev. John has it right. It isn't a lack of trust of the woman or a lack of trust of himself, just an acknowledgement that there are a lot of gossip mongers out there. Some people will just assume the worst on their own, others will deliberately spread malicious rumors for whatever reason. It's sad but that's how it is.

I like the Billy Graham Rule (though I've never called it that)... Certainly people need to be protected - from possible rumors and false allegations for starters. I appreciate how at my church all of the rooms have windows - many of them quite large - as part of our plan to protect.

I think this is a wise rule.  Not unlike the two adult policy at youth group or church school.  One of my obstetricians was a male - a female nurse was always present during examinations.

My male doctor used to ask if I wanted the nurse present for an exam.  I always replied 'Not unless you need her assistance".  Eventually he stopped asking.  

We now have a female doctor.  I don't know if she asks Seelerman if he wants the assistant to come in.  I think he would be uncomfortable with two women in the room - especially if one was just observing.  

Replying to an early post.

Back to reading the thread now.

My first exposure to Franklin Graham was at the second Billy Graham School of Evangelism I attended at Lake Louise.  My gut reaction to him was distrust as he seemed to me to be a slick con artist.  While I disagree with parts of what Billy Graham was about, I saw him as a sincere, dedicated and wise evangelist.  Our old organ that is dieing was left here at the end of his last cross Canada crusade.

Franklin seems more sincere, and less slick, to me than do some others. While I'm not a Franklin Graham fan, I'd prefer his messages over those of, say, Joel Osteen, Benny Gunn, or (except for comedic value) Pat Robertson.

It is only human to Ur, or is that err? If that is the case who's Ur? Why creations made flighty angles ... so they'd learn in the crash ... otherwise you can't teach eM nothing.

This is contrary to Gods declaration to go teach my children and thus de light goes out ... to provide levity (or Levite) as the illusion of real people learn quicker when they see something coming down or falling upon them ...

Those caught up in the extremes of the column-ite (or calamity) can't see this for they are unprepared for unconventional experiences with the infinite narrative! This creates a whole array of things to occupy your thoughts in the journey from where you think you know where you are to the position of knowing where you're going. Theya re two separate states of mind that you need to balance out---Schroödinger as he rings your "belle" ... and thus it toles! Some can't be called out on anything ... they just don't believe in words like vocation and aD vocation of a higher order of mind! The bible says they'd rather not know such things ... or things that are absent for that matter ... as abstract ... in a word the insubstantial incarnate! Such things are virtually unknown to those that believe only in mortal's tuff. Another Eire ...

I disagree about Billy and Franklin having different characters. Billy was more concerned about being popular, so he hides some of his more objectional views, and adapts others according to the time.  Billy really did want to be seen as America's Pastor, and thus knew he had to publically move to more moderate positions. (As opposed to Franklin. 

Private correspondence and parts of the NIxon secret tapes between President Nixon reveal Billy to be not only deeply flawed, but as a man committed to evil and evil acts.

He urged Nixon to war crimes that even Nixon rejected, because they would have involved the mass killing of millions of Vietnam.  And one of Billy's crusades, was to remove all Jews from any position of power. He ureged Nixon to get rid of all the Jews working in journalism, and Hollywood.

When Billy Graham Urged Nixon to Kill a Million People

Back in April, 1989, a Graham memo to Nixon was made public. It took the form of a secret letter from Graham, dated April 15, 1969, drafted after Graham met in Bangkok with missionaries from Vietnam. These men of God said that if the peace talks in Paris were to fail, Nixon should step up the war and bomb the dikes. Such an act, Graham wrote excitedly, “could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam”.

 

Graham lent his imprimatur to this recommendation. Thus the preacher was advocating a policy to the US Commander in Chief that on Nixon’s own estimate would have killed a million people. The German high commissioner in occupied Holland, Seyss-Inquart, was sentenced to death at Nuremberg for breaching dikes in Holland in World War Two. 

  Graham on Jews

On the account of James Warren in the Chicago Tribune, who has filed excellent stories down the years on Nixon’s tapes, in this 1972 Oval Office session between Nixon, Haldeman and Graham, the President raises a topic about which “we can’t talk about it publicly,” namely Jewish influence in Hollywood and the media.

Nixon cites Paul Keyes, a political conservative who was executive producer of the NBC hit, “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In,” as telling him that “11 of the 12 writers are Jewish.”

“That right?” says Graham, prompting Nixon to claim that Life magazine, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others, are “totally dominated by the Jews.”

Nixon says network TV anchors Howard K. Smith, David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite “front men who may not be of that persuasion,” but that their writers are “95 percent Jewish.”

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declares.

“You believe that?” Nixon says.

“Yes, sir,” Graham says.

“Oh, boy,” replies Nixon.

“So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

Here in Billy's own words (from the Nixon tapes) he admits to hiding what he really believes from people.

http://www.rense.com/general20/billy.htm

Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he confides to Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."

In a release of Nixon tapes in 2002, Nixon, Graham and Haldeman conversed during a Graham White House visit in 1972. Graham made anti-Semitic remarks in that tape, agreeing with Nixon that Jews control the nation's powerful media, "And they're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff and putting out everything," Graham said

 

 

While Franklin is not know for having such views against Jews, his views against Muslims, are similar, yet even he falls short of expressing a desire to kill them.  Nor has FRanklin's blood thirst even come close to that of his fathers towards the Vietnamese people. 

One problem with what you cite, Alex, is that what Billy allegedly said was said more than 40 years ago and many (especially conservative evangelicals, some of whom have spoken out - and Dcn. Jae has expressed similar thoughts) have noted what appears to be a significant moderation in Billy's views since then, especially toward other religions. But 40 year old quotes aren't necessarily helpful. If I read past sermons, there are things I said 10 years ago that I'd never say today and that I can't believe I said then.

The only thing that he allegedly said 40 years ago, was what Holderman said about him calling Jews satanic.

All the other anti semetic bs he said was recorded, or written down by him , and is now on public record. Plus when they became public 20 years ago or so, he did not renounce his former self or mthese beliefs.

Publically he did moderate his views, on other faiths and homosexuality,  but as he himself has admitted on these tapes,  he practices deception and  keeps what he really thinks from the public. So his moderation IMHO could be just be knowing that his former views would have made him unpopular.  

FUrther in my humble opion it is possible for someone to have a dramatic turn around on their views, we see it all the time on issues like homosexuality.

However those turn arounds, usually include the person admitting that they were wrong.  

Graham has not admitted to being wrong on his anti semti  beliefs or his support for mass murder. EVen after the tapes were released and his correspondence published, all he said was that he would not comment on them because he could not remebr writing them or  saying them, but apologised for causing offense. Later tapes were released where Graham said the Jews were after the church and were planing to expel all Christians from ISrael, (in the context of expalining to Nixon why he should not care about what Aericans do to Jews inside the USA) FOr this he has remained silent.

I suppose one could excuse his views on Jews as being typical of southern evengelicals in the sisties and seventities. 

However the heart of a man who not only supported killing a million Vietnamise civilians, but who did so while being an influential advisior to the man (Nixon) who could make it happen, is very evil. The nuremberg trials had men executed for much similar but lesser crimes against  the dutch.

These Nixon tapes where Graham attacks Jews are archived and avaialable on the internet.  

LIsten to this converstation, where Graham talks with Nixon about bombing Vietnam, and how the Jews are going to expell Christians from Isreal. (if you believ that it is only alledged that he said these things, who can listen to him say it in his own voice. 

This is after Nixon says that SPain took care of the Jews, and GErmany took care of the Jews, and if the Jews in America do not behave than America will do what SPain and Germanty did. 

President Nixon: No. Well, the thing that you've really got to emphasize to him though, Billy, is this: anti-Semitism is stronger than we think, you know. They just--it's unfortunate, but this has happened to the Jews. It happened in Spain, it's happened in Germany, it's happening--and now it's going to happen in America if these people don't start behaving.

Graham: Well, you know, I told you one time that the Bible talks about two kinds of Jews. One is called "the synagogue of Satan."12 They're the ones putting out the pornographic literature. They're the ones putting out these obscene films.

President Nixon: Like the thing in Time magazine.13

Graham: Terrible.

President Nixon: And then Newsweek.14

Graham: Ruth [Graham] canceled both of them.

President Nixon: Good for her.

Graham: We won't take Time or Newsweek.15

President Nixon: I'll tell you it's a disgraceful thing. And I think, really, they don't deserve to live.

Graham: And for Time to come out the week of your inauguration with that thing was so--

President Nixon: That's right.

Graham: --unbelievable.

http://whitehousetapes.net/clip/richard-nixon-billy-graham-nixon-and-bil...

I am listening to the tapes now, and Graham is just unbelievably full of hate for Liberals and democrats as well as Jews. 

President Nixon: You could point out this: that there's nothing that I want to do more than to be, I mean, not only a friend of Israel, but a friend of Jews in this country, but that I have to turn back a terrible tide here if they don't get ahold of it themselves. And it's up to them.

Graham: And they better understand it and understand it quick.

President Nixon: Because there are elements in this country, you know, not just the Birchers but a lot of reasonable people that are now getting awful sick of it.19

Graham: They really are.

President Nixon: Don't you think so?

Graham: In the church, too. I think what has happened in the church in the last two months is almost--they've almost--these denominational leaders--I'm amazed. They are shaken by all this, because they have been so pro-Jewish.

President Nixon: Sure.

Graham: And the people that have been the most pro-Israel are the ones that are being attacked now by the Jews. And then to come out--

President Nixon: Can't figure it out.

Graham: --they're going to kick all Christians out of Israel is unbelievable.

President Nixon: Can't figure it out. Can't figure it out. Well, it may be they have a death wish, you know. That's been the problems with our Jewish friends for centuries.

Graham: Well, they've always been, through the Bible at least, God's timepiece and He has judged them from generation to generation, and yet used them, and they've kept their identity.